Limits...
Prospective, randomized evaluation of a personal digital assistant-based research tool in the emergency department.

Rivera ML, Donnelly J, Parry BA, Dinizio A, Johnson CL, Kline JA, Kabrhel C - BMC Med Inform Decis Mak (2008)

Bottom Line: Total data gathering times, inclusive of transcription, were significantly less for PDA (6:13 min per patient) compared to paper (9:12 min per patient; p < 0.001).There were a total of 0.9 missing and nonsense errors per paper form compared to 0.2 errors per PDA form (p < 0.001).Using a PDA-based data collection instrument for clinical research reduces the time required for data gathering and significantly improves data integrity.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Hilo Medical Center, Hilo, HI, USA. moispo1@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT

Background: Personal digital assistants (PDA) offer putative advantages over paper for collecting research data. However, there are no data prospectively comparing PDA and paper in the emergency department. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the performance of PDA and paper enrollment instruments with respect to time required and errors generated.

Methods: We randomized consecutive patients enrolled in an ongoing prospective study to having their data recorded either on a PDA or a paper data collection instrument. For each method, we recorded the total time required for enrollment, and the time required for manual transcription (paper) onto a computer database. We compared data error rates by examining missing data, nonsensical data, and errors made during the transcription of paper forms. Statistical comparisons were performed by Kruskal-Wallis and Poisson regression analyses for time and errors, respectively.

Results: We enrolled 68 patients (37 PDA, 31 paper). Two of 31 paper forms were not available for analysis. Total data gathering times, inclusive of transcription, were significantly less for PDA (6:13 min per patient) compared to paper (9:12 min per patient; p < 0.001). There were a total of 0.9 missing and nonsense errors per paper form compared to 0.2 errors per PDA form (p < 0.001). An additional 0.7 errors per paper form were generated during transcription. In total, there were 1.6 errors per paper form and 0.2 errors per PDA form (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Using a PDA-based data collection instrument for clinical research reduces the time required for data gathering and significantly improves data integrity.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Error rates. Error rates were significantly higher for paper versus PDA.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2245927&req=5

Figure 3: Error rates. Error rates were significantly higher for paper versus PDA.

Mentions: Error rates were significantly higher for paper (1.6 errors per form) versus PDA (0.2 errors per form; p < 0.001; Fig. 3). Missing data errors occurred most frequently, at rates of 0.8 per paper form and 0.1 per PDA form. Vitals signs accounted for the majority of missing variables for both methods (10/22 for paper; 3/5 for PDA). Nonsense errors occurred at an equal rate of 0.1 per form for both methods. The three nonsense errors found on paper forms resulted from two illegibly written names, and from one uninterpretable response to the question that asked for the period of time that a patient had been post-partum. The four nonsense occurrences on the PDA included three duplicate entries and one mismatched city/state pairing. Transcription generated 0.7 errors per transcribed paper form. Twelve of the 20 transcription errors were in the form of non-transcribed values. The remaining transcription errors were typographical.


Prospective, randomized evaluation of a personal digital assistant-based research tool in the emergency department.

Rivera ML, Donnelly J, Parry BA, Dinizio A, Johnson CL, Kline JA, Kabrhel C - BMC Med Inform Decis Mak (2008)

Error rates. Error rates were significantly higher for paper versus PDA.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2245927&req=5

Figure 3: Error rates. Error rates were significantly higher for paper versus PDA.
Mentions: Error rates were significantly higher for paper (1.6 errors per form) versus PDA (0.2 errors per form; p < 0.001; Fig. 3). Missing data errors occurred most frequently, at rates of 0.8 per paper form and 0.1 per PDA form. Vitals signs accounted for the majority of missing variables for both methods (10/22 for paper; 3/5 for PDA). Nonsense errors occurred at an equal rate of 0.1 per form for both methods. The three nonsense errors found on paper forms resulted from two illegibly written names, and from one uninterpretable response to the question that asked for the period of time that a patient had been post-partum. The four nonsense occurrences on the PDA included three duplicate entries and one mismatched city/state pairing. Transcription generated 0.7 errors per transcribed paper form. Twelve of the 20 transcription errors were in the form of non-transcribed values. The remaining transcription errors were typographical.

Bottom Line: Total data gathering times, inclusive of transcription, were significantly less for PDA (6:13 min per patient) compared to paper (9:12 min per patient; p < 0.001).There were a total of 0.9 missing and nonsense errors per paper form compared to 0.2 errors per PDA form (p < 0.001).Using a PDA-based data collection instrument for clinical research reduces the time required for data gathering and significantly improves data integrity.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Hilo Medical Center, Hilo, HI, USA. moispo1@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT

Background: Personal digital assistants (PDA) offer putative advantages over paper for collecting research data. However, there are no data prospectively comparing PDA and paper in the emergency department. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the performance of PDA and paper enrollment instruments with respect to time required and errors generated.

Methods: We randomized consecutive patients enrolled in an ongoing prospective study to having their data recorded either on a PDA or a paper data collection instrument. For each method, we recorded the total time required for enrollment, and the time required for manual transcription (paper) onto a computer database. We compared data error rates by examining missing data, nonsensical data, and errors made during the transcription of paper forms. Statistical comparisons were performed by Kruskal-Wallis and Poisson regression analyses for time and errors, respectively.

Results: We enrolled 68 patients (37 PDA, 31 paper). Two of 31 paper forms were not available for analysis. Total data gathering times, inclusive of transcription, were significantly less for PDA (6:13 min per patient) compared to paper (9:12 min per patient; p < 0.001). There were a total of 0.9 missing and nonsense errors per paper form compared to 0.2 errors per PDA form (p < 0.001). An additional 0.7 errors per paper form were generated during transcription. In total, there were 1.6 errors per paper form and 0.2 errors per PDA form (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Using a PDA-based data collection instrument for clinical research reduces the time required for data gathering and significantly improves data integrity.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus